jsylvester

On 5/14/2020 at 10:20 AM, valiantman said:

...and knowing how much Heritage likes to hype up the buyers, you'd think they would have said something, anything, about this being the first drawing/art/production piece for any of these characters, if that was true:

https://comics.ha.com/itm/original-comic-art/jim-lee-sam-kieth-dale-keown-and-rob-liefeld-wizard-magazine-16-original-cover-art-wizard-1992-/a/7073-92065.s

Heritage isn’t the best with researching pieces. I’m a huge Maxx fan and know this cover is the first published cover anywhere which is one of the reasons I bought it. The main reason I bought it was the pose and old school MCP style with Sams noodling which he no longer does.

On 5/9/2020 at 8:55 PM, lightninglad said:

I’m assuming these OA collectors are the ones that sold it to you

Nope but that is funny. Did my own research before buying. TBH only cared about The Maxx at the time.

On 5/9/2020 at 1:34 PM, Lazyboy said:

And there it is.

No, it's not any kind of first appearance. It might not be the first published art or even the first cover featuring any of those characters (as previously shown with the Pitt Malibu Sun).

I understand the Pitt part but couldn’t find anything predating the Maxx. I’ll just state it’s the first published appearance 

On 5/9/2020 at 9:27 AM, Bird said:

There are a bunch of other characters who first appeared in and/or on the cover of magazines but who have a first appearance in comics and the comic is the more sought after collectible (but not always...think Rocket Raccoon or Starlord). First appearance in comics is different than first appearance anywhere else, even if it is a comics magazine. It might be a first appearance but it would need another word in there, like first printed appearance.

I guess the first published appearance it is and then just let the collectors that believe it as a first appearance make their own conclusion 

6 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

Notice the lack of a notation that it's a first appearance (not that CGC is the authority on that). It's a curiosity for people who like to collect that sort of stuff, sure, which is why it's interesting to note when it was published.

Crazy, to me a cover published with characters never seen before is a first appearance. Collectors of OA I’ve spoken to agree but wanted to get outside opinions from book collectors. I can understand house ads/previews using the same image of the future cover of the book not being a 1st appearance since it’s a copy of the first future cover. But if it’s original art with the first appearance of new characters including one of them titled it’s a first appearance to me. I guess it’s a grey area as some agree and some don’t.

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

You stated:

This "preview" of Action Comics #1 appeared in More Fun Comics #31

... which established a very clear example of a "preview" which COULD be considered the first appearance.

so a preview can be considered a 1st appearance? Then we get into math which just confuses me more. 

also noticed the art being used for the examples were reused on the following books which do remind me of an advertisement or copy of the original art.

the cover for Wizard 16 was made for the cover and is even drawn with the Maxx title name which wasn’t used until the Maxx #1. I can see both sides but dint see an issue stating this is the first published cover featuring the appearance of these characters other than Pitt.

thanks for the insight!

1 hour ago, valiantman said:

While we're at it... I remember that Youngblood #4 was late.  I'm pretty sure Pitt #1 was on sale and in collector's hands a while before Youngblood #4 showed up.

I remember it the same way. Always thought Youngblood was a prequel due to the timing.

30 minutes ago, valiantman said:

We know Pitt was seen, in full color, earlier than December 1992:

Good catch! I guess my cover is Pitts 2nd published cover. Wonder about the others

27 minutes ago, valiantman said:

It's an advertisement in an industry publication to get you to buy comics.  It's not a comic, so it can't be a first appearance in a comic book.  Knowing Image (Malibu) at the time, there are probably three or four earlier publications, also advertisements, which are even earlier than this one that are not first appearances either.  That's what publishers did.  They sent preliminary art and advertisements out to anyone who would publish them in hopes of selling more comics... and they even made their own (Malibu Sun is just "look what's coming from Malibu" publication about their publications).

This is a first appearance the way that an ultrasound photo is the same as a birth.  How many people celebrate the anniversary of their first (or fourth) ultrasound photo?

Congrats on owning the original art - but you'll first have to convince everyone that Superman's first appearance is More Fun Comics #31 before anyone will also believe you own the first appearance of these characters.

Wizard did many 1/2 comics but understand this particular issue is a comic magazine. That said the cover is the first published cover showing these characters for the first time. Most have told me I can describe it as a first appearance but think I’ll just state it’s the first published cover of art with these characters. Btw, I never knew Superman’s first appearance was in More Fun Comics #31. Gotta take a look at that. Thanks!

3 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I would call it a depiction. "Appearance" has a more specific definition in collecting terminology.

Not sure depiction is the right term. I’ll just state it’s the first published cover of the characters. Is that acceptable?

6 hours ago, Joosh said:

It could very well be accepted as the first published appearances and may be sought out by fans of those characters.

I doubt it will ever be as desired as the 1st comic book appearances though. Wizard was essentially advertising these ahead of time.
Advertising and previews aren’t usually a big deal to most collectors, more of niche to round out a personal collection.

Totally agree. I actually own the original art to the cover. I purchased it for the art but also for the fact it’s the first time you see these characters published. It really encapsulates the artists coming together at Image with their new creations and do consider it a first appearance for these reasons. Just wanted to hear what others thought. Thanks!

3 hours ago, GeeksAreMyPeeps said:

I don't consider this an appearance (first or otherwise) any more than I do an ad in a book. Generally, anything that's editorial or marketing I view as a different category, and Wizard falls into that category.

It’s a cover with characters that have never been seen before. What else would you call the first time you see characters published? I definitely wouldn’t call this an ad.

Interested in the early Image characters 1st appearances and noticed The Maxx, Deathblow, Bloodwulf and Pitt were first published on the cover of Wizard #16 (attached) which predates Darker Image. Would this cover be considered a first appearance? 

Wizard #16 December 1992- 1st cover with Maxx, Deathblow, Bloodwulf, and Pitt

Darker Image #1 March 1993- 1st appearance Maxx, Deathblow, Bloodwulf

Youngblood #4 2/1/1993- 1st appearance of Pitt

Pitt#1 January 1993

Appreciate the insight!

3 hours ago, batman_fan said:

It is hard to get use to these ever increasing prices.  The only way I see things going down is if I decide to sell something 

I’m in the same boat. Listed some really nice pieces for tomorrow just to stash cash for future purchases. Probably would have been smarter to keep them and am having sellers remorse since I’ll never afford them again. 

Thanks! Some of the bids seem low but I’m sure all will go well.

Hey everyone!

Just listed a Mcfarlane Spawn card piece I really didn’t want to let go but such is life. 

http://comics.ha.com/c/search.zx?type=friend-consignorlive-notice&saleNo=7169&collection=225&FC=0

Hope you find what you’re looking for and good luck!